^^•'t. . . *^ .« .>v^. -V/ /jljl^', *^^^^« y^^M£^, \_ V ^-^..^^ :iec^^o \./^ /^I^\ ^^. -^ov^ ::^^' '^^0^ /^^»'-. ^ov^^ ;^^1^<.^ "^^0^ «- .^ ^^ THE NORTH CAROLINA CESSION OF 1784 IN ITS FEDERAL ASPECTS BY ST. GEORGE LEAKIN SIOUSSAT Profeisor of Histor>' and Economics in the University of the South Reprinted from the Proceedings of the MISSISSIPPI VALLEY HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION FOR THeYmi^ 1908-1909 ^i^'. ■f9i ^m\ THE NORTH CAROLINA CESSION OF 1784 IN ITS FEDERAL ASPECTS By St. Geobge Leakin Sioussat (The writer desires to make acknowledgement of assistance received from the Carnegie Institution of Washington in the preparation of this paper.) This paper treats of a certain phase of the Westward Movement — the years after the American Revolution, when settlers were crossing from the coastal plain of the Atlantic into the valleys drained by the tributaries of the Great River. Of this movement a characteristic and im- portant expression appeared in the building of the Com- monwealth of Tennessee ; and in the evolution of Tennes- see to Statehood the incident which, perhaps, has attract- ed most attention was that experiment which bore the name of the State of Franklin. The history of Franklin has been the subject of much careful investigation. The events which took place under the leadership of John Sevier and his associates — the quarreling with the mother State of North Caro- lina, the Indian troubles, the relation of Franklin as a part of the Trans- Alleghany region to the foreign affairs of the United States, and especially the constitutional development of this transitory body politic — have been more or less exhaustively narrated in several well known works/ But as to the circumstances that existed in North Carolina at the time of the Franklin movement, as to the economic relation of the new commonwealth to the parent State, and, again, as to the connection between these factors and the government of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, it has seemed, at least to the writer, that the older accounts were in some degree unsatisfactory. Hence he has attempted an exam- ination of the sources recently made available, particu- larly the later volumes of the North Carolina archives, and has embodied the results in the following pages. It will be advisable first to outline briefly the political and economic condition of North Carolina at the close of the Revolutionary War; second, to sketch the procedure of the government of the United States under the Arti- cles in relation to certain important governmental meas- ures ; and third, to discuss at greater length the relations between the States and the Confederation as to these same measures. In this way we shall be led to the economic foundations of Franklin and the politics. State and Fed- eral, which lay behind the acts of 1784 by which North Carolina first ceded to the United States her western territoiy and then withdrew her cession. The work which the British had failed to do in their blows at the center had been attempted again in the southern provinces, with expectations of greater success. The reasons which had led to the transfer of the theatre 1 Haywood 's The Civil and Political History of Tennessee (Reprint of 1891), Ch. 6; Ramsey's The Annals of Tennessee, Chs. 4, 5; Phelan 's History of Tennessee, Chs. 9-12; Roosevelt's The Winning of the West, Part IV, Ch. 4; Turner's Western State-Making in the Revolutionary Era, in The American Historical Review, Vol. I, pp. 70-87, 251-269; Alden's The State of Franklin, in The American Historical Review, Vol. VIII, pp. 271-289; and Caldwell's Studies in the Constitutional History of Tennessee (Second edition, 1907), Ch. 3. CAR t8 /j,^ / of war were apparently justified in the taking of the southern coast- towns and in the bitter civil war which the presence of so many loyalists aroused. When hos- tilities were concluded, it was a broken South that re- mained. The foundation of the social order had been shaken by the withdrawal of many who had chosen the wrong side. There was much lawlessness and violence; the Indians were a source of anxiety; and above all was the burden of public debt which hung oppressively over a scattered and predominantly rural population. This was especially illustrated in North Carolina. Notwith- standing some attempts at taxation, throughout the pe- riod of warfare the State depended chiefly on issues of paper money which ran through a fearful and rapid course of depreciation, the story of which has been told in detail, if somewhat unsympathetically, by Professor Bullock.^ But in addition to financial disaster other evils rapidly developed. McRee, in his Life of Iredell ' com- ments upon the violence of the partisan politics that marked the return of peace, attributing the heat of this partisanship to the reappearance of the men of thought who had so long been eclipsed by the men of action. Many Tories came back to gather what they could of their broken fortunes, ruined not only by war but by excessively confiseatoiy legislation. Litigation thus stirred up fos- tered cupidity and avarice; and speculation, especially in lands, ran riot.* As to the government, a picture in miniature is given in 1783 when the executive in the per- son of Governor Martin sharply lectured the Assembly and commenting on the hurried legislation that had been passed, said: ''I need scarce mention that a general reform is wanting in almost all the offices of State at this 2 Bullock's Essays on the Monetary History of the United States, pp. 184-204. 3 McRee 's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, p. 81. * McRee 's Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, Vol. II, p. 81. crisis. Neglect of duty, abuse of power, disobedience of laws, your monies unaccounted for, and public credit almost sunk, all call for your authority and correction.'" From this rather depressing picture of the internal affairs of North Carolina let us now turn to the govern- ment of the United States under the Articles of Confed- eration, in the years from 1781 to 1784. That govern- ment, if not outwardly divided or confused, was sufficient- ly ineffective ; and of all manifestations of this, the lack of financial control was the most e\ddent. Of the efforts of Morris and Hamilton to remedy the loss of credit which threatened to vitiate if not entirely to wreck the work of the Revolution all our histories of the period are full. Very closely related to this was that which President Welling in a suggestive though incomplete study called ''The States '-Rights Conflict over the Pub- lic Lands."® Out of the many ramifications of these two questions, some, such as those of international inter- est, must be omitted, and we shall take up only those essential to the purpose in hand. These may be outlined as follows : — First, apart from the issue of paper money and the negotiation of loans, the provisions of the Articles of Confederation pennitted Congress to obtain a Federal revenue from the country at large only by ''requisitions" upon the States, by which the States were asked to pay their respective quotas of the expenses of the common government. But it developed that this provision was a failure because the basis of apportionment established by the eighth article of the Articles of Confederation proved unworkable. That article, adopted only after a prolonged debate,^ provided that the States should pay "in propor- B Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, p. 243. 6 Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. Ill, pp. 411-432. 7 The article was adopted October 14, 1777, in the form of an amend- ment to article 9 as originally draughted. — Ford 'a Journals of the Con- tinental Congress, Vol. IX, pp. 801, 802. The earlier proposal was to rate tion to the value of all land within each State granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land, and the build- ings and improvements thereon, should be estimated ac- cording to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled should establish." The Journals and the Madison Papers reveal an ir- reconcilable difference as to the "mode" which should be adopted. Not all land claimed by a State was ratable in assessing the State, but only that granted to or sur- veyed for any person. This was a vague provision, which in 1777 seemed to bear with greater severity on the more densely populated States of the East. It is not surpris- ing that, when the article was adopted, it was by the solid vote of the southern States and New Jersey, while all the New England delegates voted no and New York and Pennsylvania were divided.* In view of the difficulties which the article presented. Congress early in 1783 ''re- quired" an assessment of the value of lands; but differ- ence of opinion as to whether the inquest should be conducted by the Confederation government or left to the States resulted in a resolution which was not effec- tive.^ In this connection, quaintly observes Madison, ''Mr. Dyer ludicrously proposed that each of the States shall cheat equally. ' ' '° The next proposal in logical order was, therefore, directed to the amendment of Article 8; and it was at the States by the gross population. As to the debate over these two plana, see Eandolph's Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I, pp. 22-25. 8 Ford's Journals of the Continental Co^ngress, Vol. IX, pp. 801-802. 9 February 17, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edi- tion). Vol. IV, pp. 157-158, 161-164. For the debates on the valuation of lands see Madison's Debates in the Congress of the Confederation from November 14, 178S, to February 13, 1783, in Elliot's Debates, Vol. V, pp. 21-22, 24-25, 43, 48-51. See also a letter of N. Folsom cited in Ford's Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. IX, p. 947, note 2; and the letter of Hugh Williamson cited below, p. 44. 10 Elliot's Debates, Vol. V, p. 44, note. length resolved by Congress that population, rather than lands, should be made the basis of apportionment. There was great difficulty in reaching agreement on this point because of the uncertainty as to how far the slaves should be counted a part of the population. The final com- promise was the famous rule that three-fifths should be counted for the purpose of assessing the State.^^ A third related matter of long standing and much debated in Congress concerned the granting to Congress of some power to levy and collect taxes. With tliis effort is inseparably connected the name of Robert Morris. The first plan of direct importance, that of a five per cent impost, failed after many months of debate through the unalterable opposition of Ehode Island.'^ It was then proposed, and the idea was adopted in Congress, that for twenty-five years Congress should be authorized to levy specific duties on certain articles with five per cent duties on others. ^^ In either form the impost would constitute, of course, indirect taxation, and much argu- ment was used to show the shifting of such taxes. But in the financial history of these years too much stress has been laid on these indirect taxes to the neglect of another source of revenue which Morris had repeatedly 11 April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 191. Ehode Island alone voted in the negative. New York was divided. It should be noted that at this stage there was no question of representation involved, as there had been when the article was originally adopted and as there was in the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Con- sequently it was to the interest of the slave-holding States to have as few negroes counted as possible. 12 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 1887), Vol. VI, pp. 33-34; and Bates's Ehode Island and the Impost of 1781, in the Seport of the American Historical Association for 1894, pp. 351-359. Ehode Island's formal refusal was dated November 1, 1782. Congress decided to send commissioners to persuade Ehode Island, but before they had fairly started, news was received that Virginia, under the influence of E. H. Lee, had withdrawn its assent to the impost. 13 This was also adopted April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 190. proposed and which was the link connecting taxation with the land. In the resolutions debated and adopted in the spring of 1783 there was added to the proposal of indirect taxa- tion mentioned above the suggestion that other revenues of such nature as the States might judge most conven- ient should be provided by the States for supplying their respective proportions of a sum of a million and a half dollars of annual interest/* These somewhat myster- ious "revenues of such nature as they may judge most convenient" are not further specified in the resolutions passed April 18, 1783; nor is the ''Address of Congress" recorded in the Journals under date of April 24th much clearer as to the nature of the "supplementary funds" to which it refers. ^^ But, as in so many cases, the omitted explanation is of great importance. For some years Morris had been urging the granting of taxes upon polls and upon lands — that is, direct taxes — as well as an excise or internal tax upon spirits. Over these taxes and their incidence there was considerable correspondence and debate ; ^^ and these are the funds to which the docu- ment quoted above refers. The political significance of these financial measures is to be clearly noted. They had been conceived and urged as a balance to the customs duty, in the knowledge that the commercial States felt that customs duties fell with proximate severity upon themselves, notwithstand- ing theories of diffusion that might be advanced. Hardly any better illustration of the real existence of this feeling can be cited than a letter which Howell of Rhode Island 1* April 18, 1783. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 190. '^'^ Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 194-197. ^^ Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 198-201; and Wharton's Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revo- lution, Vol. V, p. 619 ff.; Vol. VI, p. 280 ff. wrote to the Deputy Grovernor of the State on the last day of May, 1784, in wliich he criticised the recent act of Pennsylvania as to the impost which he characterized as "complete" in respect to that tax, but "very deficient on the supplementary funds," and indicated that Pennsyl- vania did not intend to comply with the whole plan. An- other act which he transmitted was that of South Caro- lina, which was also in regard to the recommendations of April 18, 1783. This was the eighth act of this sort, nothing having yet been heard from North Carolina, Georgia, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. But only two or three States had passed any acts respecting the "supplementary funds". Howell urged that these were essential to the general plans and had been so recog- nized by the resolution of Congress which said "That none of the preceding resolutions shall take effect until all of them shall be acceded to by every State". "I find", continued Howell, "that the supplementary funds are very unpopular this way. The lords of exten- sive soil are more ready to mortgage to Congi'ess a twen- tieth part of what enters their ports than a hundredth part of what goes off from their plantations. But will the commercial states suffer the impost to be carried into effect before the supplementary funds are granted? .... The very unequal operation of such a partial ar- rangement must be ob\dous". Howell then entered into a discussion of the relation of these two forms of taxation to the foreign and to the domestic debt, showing how this matter would seriously affect Rhode Island. After a comment on the action of Congress as to the western lands he added before closing that there was good news from North Carolina which had just made a cession to Congress. Georgia had not done so and was rumored to be in the throes of land-jobbing.^^ The Rhode Islanders, then, who went down to the sea 17 Staples 's Bhode Island in the Continental Congress, p. 515. in ships, would have none of a customs duty unless land taxes were forthcoming from the landed States. We shall see in a moment the bearing of this upon a landed State — North Carolina. The last of the Federal measures of which we have here to take account was perhaps the oldest of all. This was the insistence on the part of the "landless" States that States claiming western territory should cede such territory to the United States for the common good. The story is familiar. The importance of the matter is per- haps even now hardly appreciated. The State whose cession was of chief importance was, of course, the State of Virginia, whose claims were imperial in their extent. We shall not here trace the earlier phases of the question ; but remembering Maryland's refusal to adopt the Arti- cles, the resolutions of Congress of 1780 on the subject of western cessions, and Virginia's promise of January 2, 1781, we may proceed at once to the spring of 1783 when with the other measures which we have now dis- cussed this also found a place in the resolutions of April 18th already referred to. In regard to all these meas- ures — the alteration of the eighth article of the Articles of Confederation, the granting by the States of supple- mentary funds, and the pressure on the States to secure cessions of western lands — the attitude of North Caro- lina is of interest. In the spring and summer of 1782 there was a period when North Carolina was not represented in Congress. In July, however, Hugh Williamson and William Blount appeared as Delegates. Later came Nash, Hawkins, and Spaight. There was considerable shifting, and by the time of adjournment in the summer of 1784 Williamson and Spaight were the only delegates in attendance.'* Williamson then left Spaight to serve on the Committee 18 Williamson came July 19, 1782, Blount, July 22. — Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, pp. 50-51. 10 of the States, which sat during that adjournment, and returned to North Carolina. Following the order already established we shall consider first the amendment of Article 8 — that which proposed to substitute population for lands as the basis for apportionment. On October 22, 1782, while the de- bate was at its height, Williamson and Blount wrote from Philadelphia to Governor Martin of North Carolina a long letter in which they discussed the matters then before Congress. They pointed out that the full effect of the original provision as to the apportionment, that is, * * land granted or surveyed with improvements ' ' had been ** avoided" (as they expressed it) on the ground that the enemy was in possession.^® In other words, only those lands had been counted which were free from Brit- ish occupation. To this interpretation North Carolina should hold fast. But, they said, when the western lands should be included (peace was now in sight), the situation would not be so favorable, for these western lands would produce little revenue but would increase to nearly double North Carolina's quota of the national debt. Every State would be charged with its located lands, and as land jobbers were not a very popular set of men in any country and as the lands would probably be valued by indiiferent (that is, impartial) people. North Carolina could be assured that the western lands which were located but not improved would be rated at their full value.^" From this they proceeded to broach the subject of a cession by North Carolina. But to this point we shall return below. Next year (1783) the North Carolina delegates voted for the amendment to Article 8 in its modified form, which substituted population as the basis of apportionment." 19 Compare Madison 's note on the attitude of the Connecticut dele- gates. — Elliot 's Debates, Vol. V, p. 21. 20 Clark 's State Records of North Caroline, Vol. XVI, p. 434 ff . 21 Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 191. 11 Next comes the matter of the supplementary funds. In 1782, E-obert Morris wrote to the Governor of North Carolina, as to the other Governors, about his proposed Federal revenues, and stressed especially the project of a specific tax on land, measured by the one hundred acres without regard to value. Morris argued at length to show what a light and equitable tax this would be. Meanwhile the matter came up in Congress ; and in the same letter to which we have already referred Williamson and Blount gave their opinion of the scheme. This was distinctly unfavorable. They thought such a tax "in- sufferably unequal." The vast tracts of sandy barren in North Carolina could never be measured with the same scale as the uniformly fertile lands in some of the northern States. In this case they seem to have looked at this Federal tax as highly oppressive to a State which had large amounts of land which could so be taxed. It is obvious that North Carolina, for example, would pay a much larger tax than Rhode Island or Massachusetts." From this they passed to the third of our questions, the cession of North Carolina's western lands. After some reflections on the extent of this territory they pro- ceeded to lay down the following definite conditions which in case a cession should be made, they urged upon the North Carolina Assembly: — I. The whole expense of North Carolina's Indian expeditions should pass to her account in the quota of Continental expenses. II. The actual valuation of all lands and improve- ments claimed in any State before the cession should be confirmed. III. The sundry accounts of North Carolina's offi- cers should be liquidated and the claims of the State 22 But as to the impost, North Carolina's jealousy of Virginia, her more powerful commercial neighbor, led her to look with favor upon Federal control — See Madison 's estimate, Elliot 's Debates, Vol. V, p. 60, note. 12 established, so that quotas might be fixed of the debt con- tracted or to be contracted. IV. The lands so ceded should be disposed of to the best advantage by the consent of at least nine States for payment of the public debts. V. If any separate State should be erected on any of those lands, part of the public debt should be trans- ferred to such State according to the value of the land it contained." It is evident that in the minds of those who repre- sented North Carolina's interests at the seat of govern- ment financial considerations were uppermost; the State should use its lands as a means to procure credit for all its expenditures and thereby reduce its indebtedness. This was to be the keynote of North Carolina's policy; and even if a separate State should be erected on the land ceded, it should be made to bear its due share of the Revolutionary debt. How this share was to be deter- mined was definitely stated : it was to be on the basis of land value, not on that of population. But such a finan- cial adjustment as this was subject to an additional com- plication which we have thus far omitted from consider- ation, and which must foiTQ the connecting link with the story of the cession. The North Carolina delegates were prepared to rec- ommend the cession of the western lands. But how much had North Carolina to give? To think of that State as surrendering a shadowy claim to distant western territory would be a serious error, for not only had settlement crossed the mountains but the State had undertaken to grant titles to land in the transmontane region. These appropriations of land had likewise a financial basis. ' In 1783 the State was, indeed, heavily in debt to the Confederation, but the most pressing obligation had been to her own soldiers. Already in 1777 the specula- 23 Clark 's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVI, p. 434 ff. 13 tive fever of the new era had led to the opening of county- land offices '" in which within the three years that they were open vast amounts of land had been entered. While / these offices were later closed,'Mand had been given as early as 1780 as an additional bounty to induce service in the war. In that year the State had created a military reservation to be used specifically for satisfying military land warrants, and two hundred acres of land and one prime slave were offered to each soldier in addition to his annual pay.'' This was raised later to six hundred and forty acres." In the year 1782 an extensive act was passed and in this act the tenns of payment by which the soldiers of the North Carolina Line should receive their lands were restated.'' During the following year, 1783, another reservation was made for these military lands f and at the same session all the lands of the State of North Carolina, with the exception of this territory reserved to the soldiers and that which was kept for the Indians were made subject to entry at ten pounds for every one hun- dred acres in North Carolina paper money.^° Thus the - public lands were used both to pay the soldiers of the State and to restore the credit of her paper currency. The result of this land legislation of North Carolina was that when 1784 was reached the best of the western 24 Act of November Session, 1777. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 43-48. 25 Act of June Session, 1781. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- olina, Vol. XXIV, p. 400. 26 Act of April Session, 1780. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 337-339. 27 Act of January Session, 1781. — Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 367-373. 28 Acts of 1782. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 419-422. 29 Act of 1783. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 482-485. 30 Act of 1783. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 478-482. 14 lands had been picked out and hundreds of thousands of acres entered by speculators. There is, therefore, little cause for wonder that Governor Martin, writing from North Carolina to the delegates in Congress, De- cember 8, 1783, expressed the fear that Congress might be dissatisfied with the opening of a land office by North Carolina as the State made them (the Congress) no cession of any part of the western land. He summarized the land legislation of the North Carolina Assembly at its recent meeting and added that if the chartered bounds of the State had extended west and north of the Ohio, North Carolina would have been more liberal, but that the State could not think of parting with any lands this side of the Mississippi until her own internal debt was paid.^^ With the winter of 1784, then, there seemed to be every probability that North Carolina would remain shut up within the walls of State Sovereignty. But while North Carolina was disposing of her lands, Virginia,-- having provided in the Kentucky region for her soldiers, was preparing to surrender her claim to the Northwest. At the end of the winter, on March 4th, the Virginia delegates completed the deed of cession which had been authorized by the act of the Virginia legislature in the preceding autumn.'^ January, meanwhile, had witnessed at Annapolis Washington's resignation of his commission," and the end of the year saw the labors of the former Commander- in-Chief devoted to the western country. Jefferson and Madison were likewise busy in the interim with the prob- lem of organization, both looking toward an increase in the effectiveness of the general government.^* ^'We 31 Clark's State Becords of North Carolina, Vol. XVI, p. 919. 32 Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 344. ii J(/urnals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 318. 3* Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 1887), Vol. VI, Part II, Chs. 2, 3. 15 hope", wrote Jefferson to Madison, "that North Caro- lina will cede all beyond the same meridian ' ' — the meri- dian of the mouth of the Kanawha.^^ For the govern- ment of the territory he prepared a plan in the shape of the ordinance which was adopted April 23d, while his scheme for disposing of the land was postponed. In addition to the cession, Virginia accepted other recom- mendations of Congress. She gave Congress the power to regulate commerce and adopted the change in the eighth of the Articles of Confederation.^** On April 29th, after some debate. Congress voted to press again the States which had not ceded their land claims, in an effort to make these cessions complete." Before this last recommendation of the Congress of the Confederation, the North Carolina Congress had met.^* At that time Governor Martin had received from Spaight a letter, dated February 24th, in which Spaight gave his approval to the suggestions of the Congress of April 18, 1783, as affording the best means of paying North Carolina's quota of the debt.^^ Williamson also had written of the Virginia cession.*" Martin's message of April 20th repeated to the legislature the proposals of Congress.*^ On May 3rd a joint committee recom- mended, among other things, the adoption of the change in Article 8, the grant to Congress of the impost duty, the establishment through taxation of a fund for the prin- 35 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 1887), Vol. VI, Part II, p. 116. 36 Bancroft's History of the United States of America (Edition of 1887), Vol. VI, Part II, p. 122. 3'' Journals of Congress (Way and Gideon edition), Vol. IV, p. 392. 38 April 19, 1784. — Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, p. 489. 39 Written from Annapolis. — Clark 's State Records of North Caro- lina, Vol. XVII, pp. 21-28. 40 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 34-39. ♦1 Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 495-497. 16 cipal and interest of the debt, and the cession of the western lands of North Carolina/^ Each one of these recommendations was duly passed into a law.*^ The example of Virginia and the recom- mendations of the North Carolina delegates had for the time won over a majoritj^ of the North Carolina legisla- tors to the broader national outlook and the disposition to increase the power of the Confederation government. Of the measures passed, the Act of Cession has chief interest for us. In the older collections of laws the full text of this important statute was omitted, but now the State Records of North Carolina happily render the whole of the law accessible. The preamble referred to the resolutions of the Con- gress of the United States, passed September 6th and October 10, 1780, and that of April 18, 1783, in which the States were urged to cede their western territory ' ' as a further means of extinguishing the debt and estab- lishing the harmony of the United States". Concurring in this spirit North Carolina, therefore, ceded to the Congress of the United States, "for the said States", the title, etc., which she had to the lands west of the Alleghany Mountains. Omitting matters of boundary let us pass to the terms which by the Act of Cession were definitely stated as conditions of the grant. 1. After the Cession should be accepted, neither the lands nor the inhabitants of the territory west of the boundary line should be estimated in the ascertaining of North Carolina's pro- portion with the United States in the expenses of the late war. 42 Clark 's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 542-545. 43 Acts of April Session, 1784. — Clark's State Records of North Car-^ olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 547-549, 557-559, 561-563, 564-565. Another act au- thorized Congress to regulate the commerce of the States; and still another permitted Congress, in the final settlement of financial matters, to waive the provisions of Article 8. — See Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol, XXIV, p. 561. 17 2. The lands provided by North Carolina laws for the officers and soldiers should inure to the use and benefit of those officers. Detailed provisions were enacted, permitting the re- moval of locations to vacant lands, in cases where there was a conflict of claims. The reservations to the Indians were to be respected and continued. 3. All the lands ceded to the United States should be con- sidered as a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United American States as then were or should become members of the Confederation or Federal Alliance of the said States, North Carolina inclusive. 4. The ceded territory should be laid out or formed into a State or States which should be "a distinct republican state or states and admitted members of the Federal union having the same right of sovereignty as other states". Such states should be permitted the same constitution and bill of rights which were now established in North Carolina subject to proper alterations not inconsistent with the Confederation of the United States. "Provided always, that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves otherwise than shall be directed by the Assembly or Legislatui-e of such State or States." 5. If Congress should not accept the lands thus ceded and give due notice within twelve months, the Act should be of no force and the lands should revert to the States.^* These nationalizing measures and particularly the Act of Cession did not pass without a struggle. This act was passed in the House by a vote of fifty-two to forty-three; a resolution to defer it to another session had previously been lost only by a single vote." A sup- plementary act was passed, also, which declared that the sovereignty and jurisdiction of North Carolina with re- *4 Act of April Session, 1784. — Clark 's State Records of North Car- olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 561-563. The text as printed says distinctly twelve months. Haywood wrote "two years", and the error has been followed by all subsequent historians. 46 Clark's /State Beoords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 642-643. 18 gard to the ceded territory should continue until Con- gress should accept the cession.*® On the third reading of the Act of Cession a protest was filed by William R. Davie and several others, which is of great interest as one of the rare expressions of the opinion of those opposed to the relinquishment of the western lands. Davie and his associates based their dissent on the following grounds. The extent of North Carolina's territory as bounded by the Treaty of Peace could never endanger the general Confederacy. The cession of so large a portion of the State, while Virginia and Georgia would retain an immense territory, would be dangerous and impolitic. Moreover, this State from her local circumstances and the weakness of the two southern States was obliged to advance for their aid and defense large sums which were still unliquidated, and as North Carolina's credits for those advances had been uniformly opposed by the eastern States it should have been expressly stipulated that the whole expense of the Indian expedition and militia aids to Georgia and South Carolina should pass to North Carolina's account in con- nection with the continental expenses. Again, the re- solves of Congress of February 17th or of April 18, 1783, with reference to the just proportion of the Federal debt should first have been carried into effect and these ac- counts liquidated. The western territory had been con- sidered by the people and solemnly pledged by the legis- lature as security for their claims against the public. Experience had shown that the State's want of public honesty had been already severely punished by her want of public credit, and they deemed it a false and mistaken conception that her credit would be increased with for- eign nations by an open and palpable breach of faith to her own citizens. Justice and policy required that the 46 Act of April Session, 1784. — Clark 's State Becords of North Car- olina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 563-564. 19 domestic debt should be settled first. This point they expanded, explaining the difference between the domestic debt and the loan. Loans were made by those who spare from their consmnption to the necessity of government; but a large part of the domestic debt grew out of the generous advances of individuals to the public in the hour of distress. Suspension of payment must prove ruinous to those patriotic sufferers and a disgrace to the State. Again, the auditors had left many claims unad- justed. As the cession disregarded these, they *' could never consent that the public faith should be violated and the general interest sacrificed to the aggrandizement of a few land jobbers who have preyed on the depreciated credit of their country and the necessities of the unfor- tunate citizens". Lastly, they raised the point of con- stitutionality, declaring that by the Bill of Rights, the limits of the State were not to be altered "but for the purpose of erecting a new government only".*^ This strong remonstrance of Davie's was dated June 3rd, the last day of the session. The Governor at once notified the North Carolina delegates of the measures which had passed, expressing again doubt as to the ac- ceptability of the terms of the cession.*^ Only a little more than a month later the Governor received a letter from Williamson, written on July 5, 1784, just after the adjournment of Congress and his return to North Caro- lina. Williamson criticised the eastern members for be- ing in such haste that they would take no measures for making peace with the southern Indians ; nor would they admit the authority of Congress to raise troops in time of peace for any purpose. Williamson said that he had not seen the North Car- olina Act of Cession, but he expressed surprise that no *' House Journal, 1784 (April Session), June 3. — Clark's State Rec- ords of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 712-714. 48 Clark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 78-80. 20 provision was made for passing the Indian expeditions to the credit of the State in account with the United States. He presumed that the legislature when it reconsidered the matter would suspend the Cession. He called Mar- tin's attention to the extraordinary claims advanced by the eastern States : Massachusetts had advanced a claim for recompense for her privateering Penobscot expedi- tion; Connecticut for defending Greenwich, Groton, New London, and New Haven; and Massachusetts for extra bounties. North Carolina should do likewise.*"* Somewhat over two months later Williamson re- peated this advice in a letter to the Governor written from Edenton, September 30, 1784. This long letter is, in effect, a report to the Governor of the Federal politics of the last session from the standpoint of a southern State. It is a state paper of the highest value. The spirit of the letter is one which looks favorably upon the authority of Congress, but regards with jealousy the attempts of States in other sections, especially in New England, to secure for themselves advantages in their relations to the government of the Confederation and to the other States. Williamson begins his communication by presenting a new Federal question which we have not included in those discussed above. This concerned the purchase from the Indians of the lands ceded to Congress by New York and Virginia and, more particularly, the raising 49 Clark's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 81 fif. Of equal interest is Williamson's further comment on the plan for laying out and settling the western territory, which had not been agreed to in Con- gress, but which had been published in the journals for general considera- tion during the recess. ' ' This being our sheet anchor ' ', said Williamson, "is to be carefully managed. I think the plan proposed will prevent in- numerable frauds and enable us to save millions. The general object is to oblige the surveyors to account for the land by parallels, dots, and meridians. However, as I happen to have suggested the plan to the com- mittee, it is more than probable that I have parental prejudice in its favor. ' ' 21 of a military force necessary either to hold an advanta- geous treaty or to keep the Indians in check. But to the right of Congress to make requisitions of troops in times of peace some of the States would not assent ; hence the Congress had been compelled to resort to the poor ex- pedient of calling on certain States for militia. "The inefficacy and expense of this measure", said Williamson, ''may probably give rise to better ones". He next passed to an even more important matter. This concerned the claims advanced by Massachusetts and New Hampshire and Connecticut with reference to the redemption of the old Continental money, to bounties for recruiting the Continental line, and to the amount of service rendered by these States. Williamson raised the question. Had Massachusetts done more than her quota or had North Carolina done less than her quota of mili- tary service? At present, he declared, he was not fur- nished with materials by which he could answer those questions. Continuing, he said that ''the personal ser- vice to be performed by the citizens of any State was to have been according to the number of its white inhabi- tants. And no account can be procured of the number of our inliabitants. Early in the Revolution our dele- gates for obvious reasons stated the number of our militia at 40,000, but the motives to such large statements have long since vanished and it is our duty and interest to be more correct." If as has been done in some States the population was counted as equivalent to five inhabi- tants for every man on the militia rolls it would be neces- sary to get from the brigadiers in North Carolina the musters of 1782 and thus compute the population. In such a return it would hardly be fair to include the set- tlers in the new counties over the mountains who were not there during the war, nor would any list taken the present year be so perfectly unexceptionable. Having ascertained the number of the militia it would perhaps 22 be found that near the beginning of the war North Caro- lina raised too great a proportion of Continental troops, and with the vast bodies of militia who did duty towards the end of the war chargeable to Continental account, probably North Carolina would not appear to have been deficient; if so, she would hardly object to the Massachu- setts claim provided she could obtain a similar credit. It would be necessary to know the different 'Hours of duty", the number of men, the length of their service, and at whose instance they were called out. This last point was specially important as many would not be chargeable to the accounts of the United States. Some of the northern States, he said, had been much more care- ful as to securing the proper Federal authority. But it would be very difficult to obtain an act to recognize claims for all militia service. Nine States would have to agree to such a measure. New Hampshire and Pennsylvania had already obtained full credit. Rhode Island, Delaware, and Maryland likewise would probably object to admitting any new charges by which their quota of the debt would be increased and nothing added to their own credit. In view of these difficulties Williamson said that he must refer to the Act of Cession passed by the last General Assembly. He was quite willing to believe that both those who supported and those who opposed that measure were eager for the honor of the State and the strength of the Union and only differed concerning the best means. However, some very unexpected incidents had presented themselves since the last spring, which must affect North Carolina's finances greatly and alter the policy of the State. First, Con- gress had adjourned so hurriedly that they could not obtain a vote for commissioners to treat of peace with the southern Indians. Should an Indian war break out, the western inhabitants of North Carolina would be among the chief sufferers. Second. Massachusetts and 23 Connecticut had advanced new claims to western territory in New York and westward of Pennsylvania respectively. Third, Rhode Island was said once more to have rejected the five per cent impost. Over the evil effects of this last, Williamson proceeded to dilate, emphasizing the danger which North Carolina would incur from the enact- ment of State customs tariffs by Virginia and South Car- olina, her commercial neighbors. Fourth, continued Williamson, Georgia which had rendered very little service during the war obtained a very extensive territory by the manner in which bound- aries had been settled at the Peace. She might yield to the United States at least sixty-three millions of acres after retaining for herself an extent of three hundred miles from the sea. North Carolina's share of such a cession, if Georgia would make it, would be equal to the greater part of that which remained for North Carolina to give. Fifth, Williamson brought forward the matter of the Indian expedition undertaken by North Carolina. He reminded the Governor that in 1782 the delegates had urged that if a cession should be made, it should be stip- ulated that the whole expense of such expeditions should pass to the account of North Carolina, and had expressed their uneasiness that they had not been informed nor authorized to apply to Congress for the approbation of that body. Failing such approbation he feared that such expeditions would continue to be a State expense. Recapitulating, Williamson urged that there were three measures which North Carolina was greatly inter- ested in promoting, namely: that Rhode Island and Georgia should agree to the five per cent impost; that Georgia should cede part of her territory; and that the expenses of the Indian expeditions should be paid by the United States. Could the western territory belonging 24 to North Carolina be so managed as to promote these several interests'? As to the last he expressed himself as hopeful, argu- ing as follows : If we should immediately complete the cession we shall give up the power of making advantageous terms and shall lose the argument which may bring others to adopt federal measures; on the other hand should we sell out what remains of this terri- tory to the w^estern inhabitants whatever inconveniences they may suffer, they will lose the prospect of becoming a separate state; the quota of our state will be doubled, though we shall hardly have the means of paying half of our present quota. In that case too we shall give up the means of making terms or the power of adopting better measures if better should present them- selves. The situation is critical. Perhaps it is most consistent with prudence and sound policy to make a pause. Whatever shall finally appear to be for the honor and time interest of the state may be done twelve months hence as well as now. But we may do wrong things which may not be undone.^" Williamson's letter was continued to great length, and included many other matters of great interest — the relation of North Carolina's quota to the eighth arti- cle of the Articles of Confederation, the interests of the western settlers, the various plans for the sale of western territory, the present situation of the public arms, and the sale of forfeited property in the State ftf North Caro- lina. But the important point for our purpose has been made clear by our analysis and by the extensive quota- tions which we have made, namely, his plea for a delay in the completion of the cession in order that North Car- olina's surrender of her western lands might be used as a lever to secure the best interest of the State in the con- flict of which the Congress was the battle ground. October 22nd the General Assembly met at New Bern. Several important acts were passed of which the 60 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 94. -^ The letter as a whole occupies eleven pages of print. 25 sixteenth chapter was an act repealing the cession made in the preceding spring. The preamble to this act stated that the cession made at that time was made ''in full con- fidence that the whole expense of the Indian expeditions and militia aids to the state of South Carolina and Georgia should pass to account in our quota of the con- tinental expenses incurred by the late war; and also that the other states holding western territory would make similar cessions, and that all the states would unanimous- ly grant imposts of five per cent as a common fund for the discharge of the federal debt." But ''whereas, the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, after accepting the cession of New York and Virginia, have since put in claims for the whole or a large part of that territory, and all the above expected measures for constituting a sub- stantial common fund, have been either frustrated or delayed", this act repealed the Act of Cession in its entirety.''^ As the Act of Cession had met with a protest, so its repeal met with the dissent of twenty members of the legislature, headed by A. Maclaine.®^ This protest said that however ill-founded the policy of the cession, the grant was irrevocable and the repeal, therefore, was dis- graceful. They were confirmed in this opinion by the conclusion of the protest entered into against the cession by many members of the last Assembly who, as members of this Assembly, had advocated and voted for the repeal. But were the territory thus granted within their reach they could not but believe it inconsistent to the true in- terest of the State to recall to their possession a country the inhabitants of which rejected their government, did not contribute to its support, and as long as they contin- 51 Clark's State Eccords of North Carolina, Vol. XXIV, pp. 678-679. 52 The protest was said by Maclaine to have been drawn up by Hay. — Clark's State Fecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 186. 26 ued unwillingly attached to its empire, remained a weight to their expense without relieving their public burden. Next, they criticised the reasons set forth in the preamble of the repealing act, which, unsupported by testimony, they believed to be founded in an unjustifiable suspicion of the grand council of the Federal union of the United States of America which might render difficult the future settlement of North Carolina's claims. The action of the Assembly would contribute to the continuance and increase of that division in the council of the United States, already the source of so many evils. Again, the repeal of the cession without any increase to the strength of the State, as the inhabitants of the western country formed one-tenth of the numbers of the people, would by so much increase North Carolina's debt in settling the expenses of the war, as the number of the people formed the criterion for the discharge of that debt. Further- more, the attempt to recall the grant proved the Assembl}^ unworthy to receive for North Carolina any benefit from the liberal cessions of western territory made by other States to the United States as a common fund for the use and benefit of the United States. Lastly, between the absolute grant made by the for- mer act and the re-annexation of the present act, the gov- ernment of the western country would apparently pertain to both Congress and to this State and seem to belong to neither; and during the confusion, the inhabitants of the country contended for might from necessity erect themselves into a distinct government inconsistent with the benefit expected by the United States and subversive of their own pretended claims and the right saved to their citizens under the conditions of the Act of Cession." The North Carolina Assembly rose November 25th. A few days later Governor Martin wrote officially to the ^^ House Journal, 1784 (October session), November 25. — Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XIX, pp. 830-832. 27 President of Congress to inform him that the Act of Cession had been repealed, and referred him to the dele- gates for further information on the subject.^* The same day Martin wrote also to the delegates giving an account of the Assembly's action in the matter of the cession, the interest of the foreign loan, the proposed treaty with the Cherokees, and various changes in the official system of the colony." To proceed with the course of events in Congress and in North Carolina would be an interesting task ; but the limits set for this paper — the North Caro- lina Cession and its repeal — have been reached. Even before this Assembly met, the possibility to which Mac- laine had referred in the last paragraph of his protest against the repeal had become an actual fact. On Au- gust 23d there came together the deputies from the coun- ties of Washington, Sullivan, and Green, to form the first convention to consider the interests of the settlers of that region. This was the first step in the development of the State of Franklin. Unquestionably news of the Franklin convention must have speedily reached the State authorities, but it was not until April, 1785, that the Council of State was called to consider events which had taken place west of the mountains." The repeal was passed, as we have seen, in November. In December, the following month. Governor Martin appointed Sevier to office under the North Carolina government, and in his letter informing him of this and giving him instructions no reference was made to the events of August." This official silence and inaction may indeed have been due to the wish tactfully to bring influence to bear upon the discontented pioneers. But at least one thing is certain, the conclusion of former 5< Clark's State Eecords of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 110, 111. 55 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. Ill, 112. 58 CTark 's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, pp. 435, 436. 57 Clark's State Records of North Carolina, Vol. XVII, p. 109. 28 writers from Haywood down — that the repeal of the Act of Cession was hurried through solely because of the Franklin convention of August — is shown to be incor- rect, for a better reason appears in the arguments brought forward by Williamson and supported by Spaight with reference to the retention of the west- ern lands by North Carolina. The cession was with- drawn not so much because North Carolina feared the Franklin movement in itself, as because she wished to keep her hold on her western territory in order to settle her financial relations to the Confederation. The whole movement was much more than local in its impor- tance. It was a series of events which involved the deep- est problem in the period of the Confederation — the ad- justment of State and Federal relations in regard to two fundamental and correlated powers, the control of the purse and the control of the land system. W84 • / ■• ' . '^^ A^ ^>Va^. -^xt. .<:,'^"^ *^f?Sl^'- t<. ^^' .: "0>9- u.^ o,,^:^^^- ^^^^ :i^^\ '^^0^ o^ ,'^ o \ c-^" ^^^a^'. ■ '^^ A^' *:. c-^" *^^»^»?ife'. ■ ^^ r.T» Yv L- 'Jt.vV •^'jm^^^\ '-^^Q-^ o^, • %.^^ yM»c^ \/ ;:iife\ ^^..^^ /^ .^^ V. v-s^ •^^0^ > ,^*^^- V ■ ^°-^^-.°- /.•;^'\ 0°*.^^:;^:% /.Cj^ »"-v .^^/^ i>^ ..^"4 ^oV" <$>■ . * o « o l^^iL'* ^ WERJB(pKBjKDING GranivUio» k^A O. '"^•■'** ^^ ^!> ♦ €) » o ' . V \> » • • » 'o..* r, ;• ,<«' V '•-m^^ ** "^^ . '"• v*<^^ mrnm